Health Care Vote Could Mean Tough Campaign for Some Jewish Dems
03/28/10
JTA
Photo Galleria: 

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- A window was shattered by a pellet gun in an apparent vandalism attack at her Tucson district office. Sarah Palin has put her on the list of Democratic lawmakers she is targeting this fall. Arizona Tea Party activists are pledging to help defeat her bid for re-election.

All this because Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) voted for health care reform.

Giffords is one of a few Jewish Democrats political observers say could have a difficult re-election campaign because of her vote for the controversial Democratic-backed health care bill.

The bill passed Sunday would provide access to insurance for more than 30 million uninsured Americans, provide subsidies for those who cannot afford it, eliminate the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, and require all Americans to buy insurance or pay a tax. Republicans have attacked the bill as too costly and portray it as government takeover of the health care industry.

While support for the health care bill represents a potential political liability if disaffection with the president runs high on Election Day, November is still far enough away that it’s not clear how much influence it will have.

The general mood of the country, which probably will depend on the state of the economy, will likely be the determining factor, said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report. If the mood is sour, he said, voters “are going to evaluate health care in that light.”

Two-term congresswoman Giffords is in a more vulnerable spot than most. She hasn’t been in office long, and her district is not solidly Democratic. John McCain won it in the 2008 presidential election, with 52 percent of the district vote.

Helping those who cannot afford health insurance, rather than focusing on re-election, was Gifford’s paramount concern in deciding which way to vote, her spokesman said.

“The congresswoman is convinced it was the right thing to do, and good for the country,” said her communications director, C.J. Karamargin.

Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), who has been particularly outspoken on health care issues, is another potentially vulnerable Jewish Democrat. Grayson has called the U.S. health care system a “holocaust” -- making him a darling of the left but a target of the right.

Grayson unseated a four-term Republican in 2008 to win the 8th congressional district in Florida, which includes part of Orlando. While President Obama carried the district in 2008, George W. Bush carried it in the prior two presidential races.

National Jewish Democratic Council CEO Ira Forman acknowledged that votes in favor of health care reform could be problematic for Jewish Democrats like Giffords and Grayson, but he is “doubtful it will be the determinative vote” for an incumbent’s prospects of survival this fall.

Victory on a historic reform of health care “is much better for Democrats in general” than a defeat, Forman said. However, the larger issues of the economy and the unemployment rate are likely to be greater factors for vulnerable Democrats come election time, he said.

The only Jewish Democrat to vote against the health care bill was New Jersey first-termer John Adler, who ialso likely to face a tough battle in November. Hailing from a district in the Philadelphia suburbs, Adler will be facing off against former Philadelphia Eagles lineman John Runyan.

Adler said he did not back the legislation because it didn’t do enough to control costs and make health care affordable for his constituents. He also reportedly had encountered strong opposition to the bill at meetings throughout his district.

Obama carried Adler’s district by five points in 2008, but Bush eked out a slight win in 2004. Before Adler, the district’s congressional seat was held by a Republican for 16 years.

Adler’s vote will make it easier for him to argue that he is “not a rubber stamp” for the president, said Rothenberg.

The executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Matt Brooks, agreed that the health care bill is likely to be a big issue in the 2010 election. The RJC has called for repealing the bill.

More upsetting than the bill itself, Brooks said, is that, “with an exploding debt and deficit, the president is focusing not on jobs but on health care.”

Meanwhile, at least one Jewish Republican challenger is hoping that his opposition to the health care reform legislation will help him knock off a Democratic incumbent. Randy Altschuler, a contender for the GOP nomination in New York’s 1st congressional district, which includes much of Suffolk County on Long Island, said he backs repealing the health care legislation and replacing it with a different type of reform because the “spending, tax increases, and heavy government intervention” outweigh its “marginal benefits.”

Altschuler first must win a tough primary race against Chris Cox, Richard Nixon’s grandson, before being able to square off against incumbent Democrat Tim Bishop.

“That’s a race where these kinds of issues are going to resonate,” Brooks said of the brouhaha over healt

Last Update:

03/29/2010 - 00:42

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.

You have set forth the benefits of Insurance reform but you have really not fairly set forth the costs. Nothing in life is free. The health reform bill meet opposition from many seniors because at the very time the baby boom generation is going on Medicare and Medicare costs are in reality going to have to go up to accommodate the demographic swell, this bill is being funded by cutting Medicare. The Medicare trust fund is exhausted. The political reality is that the Medicare cuts will never be made adding further to the deficit. Medicare Advantage is being eliminated for most seniors. Also the individual states pay a significant portion of Medicaid, the existing medical program for the poor. The number of people eligible for Medicaid is going up substantially and the bill for the benefits is being sent to already cash strapped states. It is not fully funded by the Federal government. State taxes will have to be raised. In addition the bill is being funded by taxes on various medical devices and insurance companies. These taxes will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. To make the bill revenue neutral over a ten year period taxes are being collected for 10 years but the major benefits won’t start for another four years. If taxes and benefits started at the same time, the bill would have shown a substantial addition to the deficit. Needless to say it will do so in the future. The cost of the so called “Dr. fix” was not included in the bill. This will again be paid for by additional borrowing. Reimbursements paid by Medicare and Medicaid have to be raised because they are so far below the cost to provide the care at the current levels. If water were free people would not fix leaks. If medical care is “free”, demand will increase producing a shortage of Medical professionals and rationing. Although the date has been put off, so called Cadillac coverage, as negotiated by Labor Unions, is going to be taxed. Also both Medicare and Medicaid are currently subsidized by privately insured patients through cost shifting. Cost shifting will increase raising premiums as the numbers on government programs increase. There are in reality no measures to cut costs contained within the bill. All these additional taxes and expenses are going to be imposed on a struggling economy. It may choke off the recovery and increase or extend unemployment. Very substantial opposition to this bill came from Democrats. It took a lot of arm twisting to get it passed through a Democratic Congress. The bill was by wide margins rejected by the public. The rational for pushing an unpopular bill through was that the administration needed a political victory. Many Democrats had already suffered political damage by having voted for it in the first case and were told that they would have party backed candidates run against them in primary fights. They were also told not to expect any financial assistance from the party if they did not vote as the administration desired.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.